Search for: "IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY "
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2024, 11:45 am
Relying on and analyzing the “likelihood of confusion” factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the TTAB denied ROGUE’s request for cancellation. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:00 pm
As Civil Procedure professors, we were intrigued by the Court’s disposition of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm
Joiner had can cause small-cell lung cancer.[13] Perhaps the most egregious lapses in scholarship occur when Ranges, a newly minted scientist, and her co-author, a full professor of law, write: “For example, Bendectin, an antinausea medication prescribed to pregnant women, caused a slew of birth defects (hence its nickname ‘The Second Thalidomide’).49”[14] I had to re-read this sentence many times to make sure I was not hallucinating. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
In In re Solera Holdings, Inc. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
” The court finally denied review on Nov. 20 in six-time relist E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. raises the issue of who may assert claims in bankruptcy court. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 2:38 pm
Don Blankenship, a coal company executive who was convicted of conspiring to violate safety standards, claims he was defamed when after release he unsuccessfully ran for office. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 7:10 pm
Some notes on vexing issue, which fortunately has never serious issue for me. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 1:01 pm
References [6] In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).[7] In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 4:23 am
Raymark Industies, that its previous 1985 decision was binding, even though the Willis case involved employees of E.I. du Pont & Nemours Company, a different employer from the court’s previous case.[2] The legal irony was thick. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 4:00 am
The rapid emergence of COVID-19 creates new challenges for the nation’s patchwork of state run workplace benefit delivery systems. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 4:32 pm
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 7:18 am
DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION, 939 F. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 10:28 am
To establish a Section 2(d) case for likelihood of confusion, the Board undertakes the 13-part test found in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 2:26 pm
To do so, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board looks to a 13-part test set forth in the seminal case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 3:09 pm
In Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases, the plaintiff must establish the presence of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ trademarks pursuant to the thirteen factors set forth in the case of In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 8:57 am
In determining whether there was a likelihood of confusion, the Board, as usual, applied the factors identified in the In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 1:54 pm
I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 8:40 am
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 8:36 am
A post at Biomass Mag on the latest Gevo/Butamax court decision includes the text:According the SEC filing, the court ruling is not material to the business of Gevo and is not material to any of the company’s other pending litigation cases with Butamax.A press release issued by Butamax notes that the court granted its summary judgment motion for invalidity of the [Gevo] ‘375 patent,Hmmm, a ruling that claims of a U.S. patent to Gevo are invalid is "not material to the business… [read post]
